In response to yesterday's article which simply pointed out AOL's forced installation of the Viewpoint Media Player and advised users who wish to remove it how to do so without AOL automatically reinstalling it at the next login, I received the following from a Viewpoint representative:

Hi Doug. This is Jeff Katz from Viewpoint (VWPT). We noticed that you recently posted an article regarding AOL and Viewpoint, in which you erroneously claim that Viewpoint is Spyware.

The Viewpoint Media Player isnot Spyware. As I am sure you are aware, sometimes plug-ins, like Flash or Java, are required in order to view content on the web. Viewpoint is an enabling technology, providing advanced rich media graphics through our Viewpoint Media Player. Please note that Viewpoint Media Player does not collect any personally identifiable information about the user or its usage patterns.

I also wanted to point out that the quote from Paretologic is inaccurate and we are working with them to remedy this mis-information.

We strongly believe that there is a misunderstanding here. Viewpoint Technology has been reviewed by liutilities, hijackthis, Pestpatrol, Adaware, System Info, Ask Leo, Computer Cops, Webroot Spysweeper, Spybot Search & Destroyand others and has been determined not to be Spyware or Adware. We have also gotten certification from the BBB, TrustE, and TestPros.

Viewpoint is a publicly traded company (VWPT) and we understand that privacy is an extremely important issue. Therefore, we design and operate our technology and services with the protection of the users privacy in mind.

Viewpoint strives to enrich the internet experience of our users and will continue to promote and innovate next generation online experiences, without compromising our user’s safety, security, or privacy.

I stand by my article as written.I generated no "erroneous claims"… I simply quoted paretologic's classification of Viewpoint as spyware.Viewpoint IS, in fact, installed without users knowledge or consent, DOES track user activity, DOES use processor cycles, memory and bandwidth. Users SHOULD have to OPT IN to benefit from your purported "enhanced experience" rather than perform an exhausting search for ways to opt out.

My beef in the article was not with Viewpoint – it is with AOL for making it so difficult to be rid of Viewpoint if an AOL user WISHES to be rid of it.The process to eliminate the features which require Viewpoint to "enhance the experience" does work without disabling AOL's software entirely… but AOL hides this option behind a wall of secrecy.This cloak & dagger approach further enhances the image of "spyware".

Let us also remember that the "Classic" definition of spyware – collecting personal info and either selling it or using it for marketing or other more sinister purposes – is not a pure definition of the term any longer."Spyware" has become a generic term encompassing adware, Trojans, RATs, Potentially Unwanted Programs etc.I personally prefer terms like "malware" for the malicious and "scumware" for the uninvited though innocuous.

The characterization as Spyware is not MINE.Paretologic (maker of Xoftspy – which I currently rate as one of my top 3 Anti-Spyware tools) currently lists Viewpoint as spyware.Xoftspy will identify and remove it as spyware.You claim their characterization is in error.That is between Viewpoint and Paretologic.They have yet to recant. Others classifying it as spyware or at least "potentially unwanted software" (PUP) include spywareinfo.com, computing.net, spyware.factexpert.com, vil.mcafeesecurity.com, neuber.com, etc.

To be fair, liutilities.com does seem defensive of Viewpoint.

You mentioned AskLeo.Leo himself, in his article both states that while not actually meeting the strictest definition of spyware (as you don't collect personally identifiable data), Viewpoint's practices DO ACT like spyware.To whit:

"They didn't ask for it. Viewpoint components are installed as a side effect of installing other software, most notably AOL and AOL Instant Messenger (AIM). The software claims to be "required", but I have a hard time understanding why I need yet another media player in order to chat with friends on AIM. The fact that Viewpoint is installed at all, and more importantly, how visible this fact is, is in the hands of these other packages. Personally, I would expect that a) Viewpoint would be optional, and as such b) I would be given a clear choice at setup time for these other software packages. Sadly that is not always the case, and Viewpoint can simply "appear", seemingly without warning.

They don't know why it's on their machine. As I just pointed out, I have no clue as to why I would need another media player in order to chat with my friends on AIM. The same is true for many packages that include Viewpoint software. Some clearly need the technology to deliver their functionality. But for others, Viewpoint is used only when certain features are used. If you never use those features, or never even think about those features even existing, the presence of an unexpected package such as Viewpoint is at best, confusing, and at worst quite distressing.

Their firewall is suddenly reporting that it's attempting to access the internet. I understand why this happens, and from a technical perspective, it's a good thing. Viewpoint, or more specifically viewmgr.exe, is checking for updates of the Viewpoint software. Many software packages now do this automatically as a way to ensure that as many of their users have the latest and most stable releases. The problem here is the cascading effect of the previous two points: you didn't ask for it, you don't know what it is, and all of a sudden it wants to access the internet? Of course that's going to raise concerns, as well it should.

So what's the answer?

In my opinion:

Viewpoint, and the other companies that package Viewpoint software, need to do a much better job of educating users at install time about Viewpoint, what it is and why it's being installed.

Viewpoint should be clearly made an optional install in almost all cases.

Viewpoint should be easily uninstalled. (Their FAQ seems to indicate that it is, but user experiences as reflected in the comments on my viewmgr.exe article report varying degrees of success.)

Consumers need to pay attention to what we're installing. In many cases packages like Viewpoint are called out on software installs and often are optional, if you'd only take the time to look. I, for one, rarely accept "default" installs for exactly this reason ... without looking, I don't know what I'm getting."

The bottom line is this.Viewpoint may not be wholly engulfed in the flames of the indisputably malware category… however their practices certainly smell like smoke.Viewpoint would do well to heed Leo's advice; especially if they are going to cite him as their defender.

Antispyware programs like Xoftspy, PestPatrol, Spysweeper, Spyware Doctor and Spybot can detect and remove Viewpoint, however AOL reinstalls it EVERY TIME you open AOL if it's found missing!

AOL has incorporated Viewpoint into it's AIM and Superbuddy features, and considers it integral to AOL "functioning properly". Therefore, even if your antispyware is able to detect and remove all vestages of Viewpoint, AOL will reinstall it the very next time you log on!

According to Paretologic, makers of Xoftspy antispyware software, Viewpoint is not only spyware, but it can slow your system down due to it's hogging of processor cycles and memory.

AOL DOES have a way to prevent this, though; but they are SURE keeping it a secret. In fact, the process CAN'T be found unless you know about it! Hence the reason for this article! EVERY AOL user should know about this.

Open AOL and go to "help" on the toolbar. Select "About AOL". Next is the SECRET STEP. You must then press "CTRL+D" to access a "secret" panel to disable all of the desktop and IM fancy features that are associated with viewpoint. This is the only way to prevent AOL from re-installing Viewpoint at AOL startup.

Most users will find their system performance improves once they have removed viewpoint.

Ok, so a tape has surfaced on pre-Katrina discussions between FEMA and the President. Regardless of your personal interpretation of the issue… whether you feel the Feds were completely inept and incompetent, or whether they did all they could under the circumstances… the tapes will prove you right – so they're really of no value at all.

It's interesting that these secure discussions were taped at all, and that these tapes have been made public by no-one knows whom. The source has never been identified in any of the stories highlighting the tapes! Who is the source of the leak? (Just wondering.)

But since it's back in the news as we mark 6 months since the storm… it behooves us to rehash some factual information:

1) The Federal Government is not responsible to be the "first responders" in any disaster. That is the province of the state and local officials.

2) Nagin failed to follow New Orleans' own disaster preparedness guidelines (which called for pressing the school busses into service for evacuation rather than leaving them idle to stand in the waters of the flooding!) Tens of thousands of "victims" could have been elsewhere when the storm struck if he had simply READ AND FOLLOWED DIRECTIONS!

3) The Louisiana National Guard is BLANCO's responsibility, and it was also HER responsibility to FEDERALIZE them. Under Posse Commitatus, the Feds COULDN'T enter the state without her authorization, even to lend disaster aid!

4) LA State government was so paralyzed in the wake of Katrina that Bush had threatened to INVADE THE STATE under the INSURRECTION ACT (to supercede Posse Commitatus) so they could begin disaster response if Blanco didn't take action to federalize the National Guard. Even then, she asked for 24 additional hours to "think about it".

5) The "Category 4" storm ("category" being determined by nothing more than wind speed) didn't breach the levees. They didn't breach till long after the storm DEPARTED their shores. It was the weight of the excess water deposited in the impoundments that breached the levees... not the force of storm winds. The 17th street Levee had recently been one of those UPGRADED and declared "FINISHED" by local officials as to its readiness for a storm. The levee breach that caused the most destruction was among those considered LEAST LIKELY to fail -- hence the "no one could have predicted" statement.

6) LOCAL responsibility for the levees MUST be assessed. Money has been thrown at New Orleans levee system for decades for maintenance, repair, upgrades and construction. Much of that money has been diverted and never spent on its intended purpose. Some has even found its way into Mardi Gras celebrations rather than protecting the city. PERHAPS if they had actually used those funds as intended there might have been better preparation against Katrina.

7) The President is not (nor should he be expected to be) personally engaged in the day-to-day operations of FEMA or any other agency. These functions are DELEGATED.

8) FEMA is not and never was intended to be involved in First Response activities, which were always supposed to be handled locally. FEMA wasn't even supposed to be involved in direct relief efforts. That's the purview National Guard, Red Cross etc. FEMA is and always has been a coordinating and paper-pushing administrative agency. They handle logistics and they write checks... AFTER the damage is done... to help rebuild. That was their role in Andrew. That was their role after earthquakes and tornados. That's what they do. To expect them to be on site as the winds died down holding the levees up and bringing manna from heaven for the residents of New Orleans (who should have evacuated... and COULD have if Nagin had RUN those School busses!) is more than unreasonable... it's ridiculous.

As New Orleans rebuilds, one must consider: If the WEIGHT of water in the impoundments is responsible for breaching levees – what is the value of building HIGHER levees? Imagine the weight of a single inch deeper water, over the vast expanse of Lake Pontchartrain!! We saw the result of rising water levels on the levee holding back the Taum Sauk Reservoir in Missouri. Only a billion gallons there! How THICK and strong must a levee be to hold back Pontchartrain if it rises against these higher levees they propose?

Sure, like many others my initial reaction to word of the Dubai Ports World deal was a jaw-dropping, head-scratching "What the F---?" But I have learned that things are rarely what they appear at first blush – and if Schumer and Hillary are vocally against something that my first instinct is to oppose… there's likely to be much more to the story. Therefore, while I have written extensively on Bush's MISHANDLING of the POLITICS of the deal (there can be no debating that the Bush Administration is completely tone-deaf and color-blind when it comes to foresight, anticipation of or handling of Public Opinion)… I had not taken a position in print on the deal itself before now, as I wanted first to obtain some facts and details.

Having now had opportunity to acquire and reflect upon a certain amount of data on the subject, I now state publicly that I am unopposed to the deal going forward – though I am strongly supportive of a thorough and transparent review of the deal. I believe that the OBJECTIVE observer's fears and objections will evaporate under the light of scrutiny. But the public must be CLEARLY, THOROUGHLY and HONESTLY informed along the way.

Some facts recently pointed out by my friend and fellow writer Jamie Allman at http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/12563.html:

1) We're not selling our ports. We're not hiring Arabs to protect our ports. We're not replacing longshoremen with Middle Easterners. Dubai Ports World took over the British corporation that handled the job of essentially writing checks to longshoremen.

2) The United States has Middle Eastern friends and Middle Eastern enemies. The UAE is showing itself a friend. The United Arab Emirates has allowed the United States unlimited use of its Al Dahfra air base for spy plane and other military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The United Arab Emirates is currently helping train Iraqi security forces as we continue to try to relieve the burden on American troops.

3) The United Arab Emirates was the first country to sign on to the Container Security Initiative. UAE port workers also help load and unload U.S. Navy ships in the Gulf Region.

4) The United Arab Emirates is located extremely close to Iran. Iran hates the UAE and the UAE hates Iran. We like that. We're glad we are friends with the UAE.

5) Some have claimed UAE ties to the 9/11 attacks. Yes, two of the 19 of the hijackers came from the UAE… but nine months before the attacks the UAE (in cooperation with the CIA) held one of them for questioning because his activities raised their suspicion. It was the U.S. that let him go, not the UAE.

6) As for money ties to 9/11, yes, money DID go through the UAE banking system, but this was NOT with the aid or complicity of the UAE government. Money went through Florida Banks too… was the State of Florida somehow complicit?

7) Some claim another reason to oppose the UAE company is because the UAE had recognized the Taliban. But so did the United States under President Clinton! In 1996 the USA established diplomatic relations with the Taliban. In 1997 a Taliban delegation came to Houston and took in the zoo and the NASA Space Center.

The fact is that there are numerous very good reasons to let this deal go forward, and few, if any, substantive reasons not to. UAE has NOT shown itself to be an enemy or a threat, but rather has been one of our most helpful allies in the War on Terror.

The Left sensed blood in the water and political hay to be made, as the kneejerk questioning of the security implications, coupled with Bush's dysfunctional P.R. machine, created a seemingly easy target. Strange alliances formed too – like Senator Schumer and Michael Savage doing a cheek-to-cheek political tango on the air. Bush's Veto threat then brought the whole feeding frenzy to a water churning fever pitch. But when the smoke clears and a thorough public vetting of the deal takes place, the political opportunism of the Left (as well as the islamophobic overreaction of the right) will be left clearly evident.

It IS in our interest to foster our friendship with a west-friendly Arabic nation. It is NOT in our interest to display such distrust of a friendly Arabic nation that there seems no motivating benefit in befriending the west at the risk of inviting the antipathy of those Islamic regimes which hate the West and all western culture and values.

Dubai is a modern, westernized oasis in a literal and metaphorical desert of 7th century Islamic Jihadism. They desire to have closer ties and better relations with the US. Should we really SHUN them rather than EMBRACE and encourage their investment in western civilization?

Is the Port Sale Deal Dead? Let's not write the obituary just yet. I think reports of its death may be premature.